Google Chat MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add two numbers' implies a simple mathematical operation but reveals nothing about error handling, computational limits, side effects, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core operation and contains no unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 integer parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While the operation is clear, it lacks context about return values (sum format), error conditions, or any behavioral nuances. For even a simple tool, more completeness would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Add two numbers' implies two numeric parameters but doesn't name them (a, b) or provide any semantic context beyond their role in addition. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the schema's parameter count and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add two numbers' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'). It's unambiguous about what the tool does, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (which appear unrelated). The purpose is immediately understandable without being tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While sibling tools seem unrelated (weather, chat, IP, messages), the description offers no usage context beyond the basic operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.